Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive nature, so the bar is lower. The description adds that the output is Markdown, in six languages, free to reuse under CC BY 4.0, and optionally includes one canton's route. It does not mention any limitations, error behavior, or size/pagination, but for a read-only fact sheet this is adequate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists the covered topics. It is efficient, but the long enumeration of topics makes it somewhat dense; it earns its place by informing the agent what the fact sheet contains.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool is a read-only fetch with an output schema (which would describe the return format), the description covers the content scope, optional canton addition, language options, and licensing. It does not explain how the output schema is structured, but that is not required. It is complete enough for an agent to know what it gets and when to add the canton parameter.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating the output languages and that the canton parameter adds the canton's registration route. It also implies the language applies to explanatory texts and links, which matches the schema. This goes slightly beyond the schema without repeating it verbatim.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states what the tool returns: a one-page Markdown fact sheet on employing household help in Switzerland, with enumerated contents (duties, contributions, simplified procedure, minimum wage, etc.). It is specific about the resource and format, but does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_hiring_checklist or get_canton_rules, leaving potential ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_hiring_checklist or get_canton_rules. The optional canton parameter is described, but no guidance is given on when to include it or when another sibling tool is more appropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.